3 ms·
> Perhaps it does. But the point was that the Linux world never seems to get things right. Well in this particular case, seems like this feature was added in l
by vidoc 10y ago
> Perhaps it does. But the point was that the Linux world never seems to get things right.
Well in this particular case, seems like this feature was added in linux 2.6.2 (2004). epoll itself was added in linux 2.5.44 (2002), so yep, you're correct that they didn't make this right immediately. Now I think it is rather easy to play this game of pinpointing flaws this way and it could be done the other way around, probably in an equally as unconstructive matter (e.g: how long did freebsd wait for robust mutexes?).
That said, amazing speaker, thanks for the links.
- X86BSD 10y agoWaiting to implement a feature while you actually engineer it well and robustly is not the same as throwing poop at a wall and seeing what sticks then scraping the poop off and forming it into another shape and throwing at the wall again.
- vidoc 10y agoSeems like you are no fan of linux's robust mutexes implementation. Sincerely, you probably know more than me about the implementation and I'd be curious to have your take on it as I have not looked at how (and so late) it was implemented in FreeBSD.
- X86BSD 10y agoThese are great reads for how it was implemented. As for how late see above. https://www.bsdcan.org/2012/schedule/attachments/195_locking.pdf https://www.bsdcan.org/2012/schedule/attachments/195_locking... https://books.google.com/books?id=aY1pBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=design+and+implementation+of+the+freebsd+operating+system&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH06vohqzOAhVDTCYKHavvBCYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=freebsd%20mutex%20implementation&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=aY1pBAAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...